DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to Applicant’s “Amendments/Remarks” filed 09/30/2025.
Claim Objections
The claim objections made in the Non-Final Rejection on 05/02/2025 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims filed on 09/30/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the ‘a breathable barrier’ of Claims 1, 5, 10, 14 and 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 9-11, 14-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyman (US 2045784 A) in view of Harges (US 20100205743 A1).
In regards to Claim 1, Hyman teaches: A system (Figs. 1-2), comprising: a piece of fabric (18 - Fig. 2, 'a suitable material, such as a rubberized fabric, canvas, or felt, preferably waterproof and of any color or design') having a first end (see annotated Fig. 2.1 from Hyman), a second end (see annotated Fig. 2.1 from Hyman), two sides (see annotated Fig. 2.1 from Hyman), a first surface (see annotated Fig. 2.1 from Hyman), and a second surface (see annotated Fig. 2.1 from Hyman), the piece of fabric defining a pocket (20 - Fig. 2), and the first surface defining an opening to the pocket (Fig. 2, shows the top, i.e. first surface defining an opening with the sections of the cover opened); and a pillow (21 - Fig. 4) that defines a [[face]] cradle (23 - Fig. 4) therein and is inflatable ("leaving an opening at 20 to allow for the insertion of a cushion 21, which is made preferably of rubber, and inflatable or deflatable through a valved tube 22."), wherein the opening is dimensioned to receive the pillow when the pillow is deflated and to retain the pillow within the pocket when the pillow is inflated (Fig. 2), [[wherein the piece of fabric further defines a face portion aligned with the face cradle when the pillow is retained within the pocket, the face portion including a breathable barrier,]] and wherein the piece of fabric is foldable into a compact state (Fig. 1) in which only one of the first surface or the second surface is outwardly exposed and both the pillow (second surface as shown in Fig. 2 would be outwardly exposed when folded, annotated Fig. 1.1 from Hyman) and [[the face portion]] are fully enclosed within the folded piece of fabric (Fig. 1, shows the portion fully enclosed within the folded piece of fabric).
Hyman does not explicitly teach: face [[cradle]], wherein the piece of fabric further defines a face portion aligned with the face cradle when the pillow is retained within the pocket, the face portion including a breathable barrier,
Harges teaches: face [[cradle]] (Fig. 1 of Harges), wherein the piece of fabric further defines a face portion (101b - Fig. 1) aligned with the face cradle when the pillow is retained within the pocket (Para 0024: "Support pillow 101 supports a user's head while the user's face is inserted in the rounded opening 104. The user's head rests comfortably on fabric cover 108 of the attached support pillow cover 102 while the user's face is inserted in rounded opening 104 and supported by support pillow 101."), the face portion including a breathable barrier (106 - Fig. 1, Para 0020: "Support pillow 101 includes a plurality of airflow grooves 106 extending along a base 101d of support pillow 101 from outside of support pillow 101 to opening 104. The plurality of airflow grooves 106 allow air to flow into and out of opening 104."),
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hyman, directed to a foldable fabric cover with an inflatable pillow insert, by adding a face cradle, face portion, and breathable barrier as taught in Harges, directed to support pillows with aligned facial openings and airflow structures. Since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed using known methods with no change in their respective functions. The modification would have aligned the user’s face with a cradle and breathable barrier, yielding the predictable result of enhanced comfort, facial alignment, and ventilation during use, and therefore would have been achieved with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image1.png
605
443
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2.1 from Hyman
PNG
media_image2.png
179
179
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1.1 from Hyman
In regards to Claim 2, Hyman in view of Harges teaches: The system of claim 1, Harges further teaches, wherein the face cradle of the pillow has an opening (104 - Fig. 1) that is configured to face towards the second end of the piece of fabric when the pillow is retained within the pocket and the piece of fabric is unfolded (see annotated Fig. 1.1 from Harges).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hyman, directed to a pocketed inflatable pillow system, by orienting the face cradle of the inflatable pillow toward the second end of the fabric, as taught by Harges, which discloses a facial opening (i.e. groove) positioned toward one end of the associated pillow cover. The modification would have predictably resulted in improved facial access, breathability and user ergonomics when the pillow is inserted and the fabric is unfolded, providing a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image3.png
607
484
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1.1 from Harges
In regards to Claim 5, Hyman in view of Harges teaches: The system of claim 1, Hyman further teaches, wherein the breathable barrier includes at least one of a mesh material or apertures (106 - Fig. 1, are shown of 'airflow grooves' aka apertures/openings/hole/gap).
In regards to Claim 6, Hyman in view of Harges teaches: The system of claim 1, Hyman further teaches, wherein the pillow is configured to be removably coupled to the piece of fabric within the pocket using at least one of a button, a snap-fit connector, hook-and-loop fasteners, a zipper (12 - Fig. 2), or a knot.
In regards to Claim 9, Hyman in view of Harges teaches: The system of claim 1, Hyman further teaches, wherein the pillow is configured to be inflated for use ("Figure 2, a rectangular mat 68 of a suitable material, such as a rubberized fabric, canvas, or felt, preferably waterproof and of any color or design, is attached to cover 10, preferably by stitching 19, or cementing, leaving an opening at 20 to allow for the insertion of a cushion 21, which is made preferably of rubber, and inflatable or deflatable through a valved tube 22.") and to be deflated for storage ("folded longitudinally and inwardly along lines 25, after having first deflated the cushion 21 by opening the valve in tube 22.").
In regards to Claim 10, Hyman teaches: A method (Figs. 1-2), comprising: obtaining a piece of fabric (18 - Fig. 2, 'a suitable material, such as a rubberized fabric, canvas, or felt, preferably waterproof and of any color or design') having a first end (see annotated Fig. 2.1 from Hyman), a second end (see annotated Fig. 2.1 from Hyman), two sides (see annotated Fig. 2.1 from Hyman), a first surface (see annotated Fig. 2.1 from Hyman), and a second surface (see annotated Fig. 2.1 from Hyman), the piece of fabric defining a pocket (20 - Fig. 2) that opens at the first surface, and the first surface defining an opening to the pocket (Fig. 2, shows the top, i.e. first surface defining an opening with the sections of the cover opened); obtaining a pillow (21 - Fig. 4) that is inflatable and defines a [[face]] cradle (23 - Fig. 4) therein when inflated ("leaving an opening at 20 to allow for the insertion of a cushion 21, which is made preferably of rubber, and inflatable or deflatable through a valved tube 22."); inserting the pillow in a deflated state through the opening of the pocket and inflating the pillow (Fig. 2, "Figure 2, a rectangular mat 68 of a suitable material, such as a rubberized fabric, canvas, or felt, preferably waterproof and of any color or design, is attached to cover 10, preferably by stitching 19, or cementing, leaving an opening at 20 to allow for the insertion of a cushion 21, which is made preferably of rubber, and inflatable or deflatable through a valved tube 22.") such that the pillow is retained within the pocket based on a size of the pillow (Fig. 2), and folding the piece of fabric into a compact state (Fig. 1) in which only one of the first surface or the second surface is outwardly exposed, and both the pillow (second surface as shown in Fig. 2 would be outwardly exposed when folded, annotated Fig. 1.1 from Hyman) and the face portion are fully enclosed within the folded piece of fabric (Fig. 1, shows the portion fully enclosed within the folded piece of fabric).
But Hyman does not explicitly teach, when inflated and a size of the opening, aligning a face portion of the piece of fabric with the face cradle, the face portion including a breathable barrier;
Harges teaches: when inflated and a size of the opening, aligning a face portion (101b - Fig. 1) of the piece of fabric with the face cradle (Para 0024: "Support pillow 101 supports a user's head while the user's face is inserted in the rounded opening 104. The user's head rests comfortably on fabric cover 108 of the attached support pillow cover 102 while the user's face is inserted in rounded opening 104 and supported by support pillow 101."), the face portion including a breathable barrier (106 - Fig. 1, Para 0020: "Support pillow 101 includes a plurality of airflow grooves 106 extending along a base 101d of support pillow 101 from outside of support pillow 101 to opening 104. The plurality of airflow grooves 106 allow air to flow into and out of opening 104.");
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hyman, directed to inserting and inflating a pillow within a pocketed fabric cover, by aligning a face portion with the face cradle and incorporating a breathable barrier as taught in Harges, directed to support pillows with facial openings and integrated airflow passageways. Because both references teach pillow systems designed to accommodate a user’s face, one skilled in the art could have incorporated the alignment and airflow features of Harges without altering their basic functions. Such a modification would have yielded the predictable result of improved airflow, comfort, and proper facial alignment when the pillow is inflated and retained within the pocket, and would have been achievable with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to Claim 11, Hyman in view of Harges teaches: The method of claim 10, Hyman further teaches, further comprising retaining the folded fabric and pillow in place using at least one fastener (12 - Fig. 2).
In regards to Claim 14, Hyman in view of Harges teaches: The method of claim 10, Hyman further teaches, wherein the breathable barrier includes at least one of a mesh material or apertures (106 - Fig. 1, are shown of 'airflow grooves' aka apertures/openings/hole/gap).
In regards to Claim 15, Hyman in view of Harges teaches: The method of claim 10, Hyman further teaches, wherein the piece of fabric and the pillow are configured for use on at least one of sand, dirt, grass, a chair, a mattress, or a table ("This invention relates to rest mats, devised to be spread upon the beach, grass or earth, in order to serve as a convenient means of protection against sand, earth, or moisture, when in use by a person lying upon it.").
In regards to Claim 16, Hyman in view of Harges teaches: The method of claim 10, Hyman further teaches, further comprising deflating the pillow after use ("In folding thee rest mat after use, it is preferably folded longitudinally and inwardly along lines, after having first deflated the cushion by opening the valve in tube. The mat is then folded in small sections along the main lines, so that it will fit conveniently into the carrying case cover. Any other articles and accessories may then be placed within the covers; the covers are then folded along line and the zipper slide or slides moved into position, so that the covers are closed and the case is ready for carrying.").
In regards to Claim 17, Hyman teaches: A system (Fig. 1 and 2), comprising: a piece of fabric (18 - Fig. 2, 'a suitable material, such as a rubberized fabric, canvas, or felt, preferably waterproof and of any color or design') having a first end (see annotated Fig. 2.1 from Hyman), a second end (see annotated Fig. 2.1 from Hyman), two sides (see annotated Fig. 2.1 from Hyman), a first surface (see annotated Fig. 2.1 from Hyman), and a second surface (see annotated Fig. 2.1 from Hyman); [[the piece of fabric defining a face portion;]] and a pillow configured to be removably coupled to the first surface of the piece of fabric closer to the first end than the second end using at least one fastener (annotated Fig. 2.1 from Hyman shows that the first end near the head is where the pillow is located at, such that it is removable via the fastener of a zipper), [[the pillow defining a face cradle configured to be aligned with the face portion when the pillow is coupled to the first surface of the piece of fabric, wherein the face portion is covered by a breathable barrier,]] and wherein the piece of fabric is foldable into a compact state (Fig. 1) in which only the second surface is outwardly exposed and both the pillow and [[the face portion]] are fully enclosed within the folded piece of fabric (Fig. 1, shows the portion fully enclosed within the folded piece of fabric).
Hyman does not explicitly teach: the piece of fabric defining a face portion; the pillow defining a face cradle configured to be aligned with the face portion when the pillow is coupled to the first surface of the piece of fabric, wherein the face portion is covered by a breathable barrier,
Harges teaches: the piece of fabric defining a face portion (101b - Fig. 1); the pillow defining a face cradle (Fig. 1 of Harges) configured to be aligned with the face portion when the pillow is coupled to the first surface of the piece of fabric (Para 0024: "Support pillow 101 supports a user's head while the user's face is inserted in the rounded opening 104. The user's head rests comfortably on fabric cover 108 of the attached support pillow cover 102 while the user's face is inserted in rounded opening 104 and supported by support pillow 101."), wherein the face portion is covered by a breathable barrier (106 - Fig. 1, Para 0020: "Support pillow 101 includes a plurality of airflow grooves 106 extending along a base 101d of support pillow 101 from outside of support pillow 101 to opening 104. The plurality of airflow grooves 106 allow air to flow into and out of opening 104."),
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hyman, directed to a fabric cover with a removably attached pillow near the first end of the fabric, by adding a defined face portion, aligning the pillow’s face cradle with that face portion, and including a breathable barrier, as taught in Harges, directed to pillow systems with aligned face openings and airflow grooves. Since the structural and functional elements were known in the prior art, one skilled in the art could have combined these features using standard design adaptations without changing their intended functions. The modification would have predictably resulted in a user facing support surface with enhanced breathability, alignment, and comfort, providing a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to Claim 20, Hyman in view of Harges teaches: The system of claim 17, Hyman further teaches, wherein the pillow is configured to be inflated for use ("Figure 2, a rectangular mat 68 of a suitable material, such as a rubberized fabric, canvas, or felt, preferably waterproof and of any color or design, is attached to cover 10, preferably by stitching 19, or cementing, leaving an opening at 20 to allow for the insertion of a cushion 21, which is made preferably of rubber, and inflatable or deflatable through a valved tube 22.") and to be deflated for storage ("folded longitudinally and inwardly along lines 25, after having first deflated the cushion 21 by opening the valve in tube 22.").
Claim(s) 3-4, 7, 12 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyman (US 2045784 A) in view of Harges (US 20100205743 A1) and further in view of Harvey (US 7621005 B1).
In regards to Claim 3, Hyman in view of Harges teaches: The system of claim 1, but neither Hyman nor Harges further teaches, further comprising at least one strap coupled to the piece of fabric and configured to: extend away from the piece of fabric when the piece of fabric is unfolded; extend around the piece of fabric and the pillow when the fabric is folded with the pillow into the compact shape; and fasten to at least one of the fabric, the pillow, or the at least one strap to retain the piece of fabric and the pillow in the compact shape.
Harvey teaches: further comprising at least one strap coupled to the piece of fabric (52 - Fig. 4) and configured to: extend away from the piece of fabric when the piece of fabric is unfolded (Fig. 4 shown to extend outward); extend around the piece of fabric and the pillow when the fabric is folded with the pillow into the compact shape (Fig. 5 shown to extend around the fabric into compact shape); and fasten to at least one of the fabric (strap 52 connects and fastens to the fabric via strap fastener 53, Col 8 Lines 52 - Col 9 Line 2), the pillow, or the at least one strap to retain the piece of fabric and the pillow in the compact shape.
Hyman, Harges, and Harvey are all considered analogous art because they each relate to portable fabric based systems with fastening structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fabric system of Hyman, as informed by Harges, to incorporate Harvey’s strap configuration with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide a secure means of retaining the fabric and pillow in a compact, portable shape.
In regards to Claim 4, Hyman in view of Harges and further in view of Harvey teaches: The system of claim 3, Harvey further teaches, further comprising a handle (50 - Fig. 5) coupled to at least one of the pillow or the piece of fabric and configured to be exposed when the piece of fabric and the pillow are in the compact shape to facilitate carrying of the piece of fabric and the pillow (Col 5 Lines 18-23).
Hyman, Harges, and Harvey are analogous because they each address transport and handling of compact fabric and pillow systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Harvey’s handle feature into the modified system of claim 3, with a reasonable expectation of success, to improve portability and user convenience.
In regards to Claim 7, Hyman in view of Harges teaches: The system of claim 1, but neither Hyman nor Harges further teaches, wherein the piece of fabric is formed from terrycloth.
Harvey teaches: wherein the piece of fabric is formed from terrycloth (Abstract: "The apparatus comprises a water-resistant material affixed to a lower surface and a terrycloth type material…").
Hyman, Harges, and Harvey are analogous because they each concern materials and construction of fabric based personal comfort items. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Harvey’s terrycloth material for the fabric of Hyman, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide a familiar, absorbent, and comfortable material for the user.
In regards to Claim 12, Hyman in view of Harges teaches: The method of claim 11, but neither Hyman nor Harges explicitly teaches, wherein the at least one fastener includes a strap configured to extend around the folded fabric and pillow in the compact shape.
Harvey teaches: (52 - Fig. 5, strap 52 connects and fastens to the fabric via strap fastener 53, Col 8 Lines 52 - Col 9 Line 2).
Hyman, Harges, and Harvey are analogous because they all relate to structures and fastening methods for folding and securing fabric based systems. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate Harvey’s strap and fastener configuration into the method of Hyman as modified by Harges, with a reasonable expectation of success, to ensure reliable retention of the folded fabric and pillow in a compact shape.
In regards to Claim 18, Hyman in view of Harges teaches: The system of claim 17, but neither Hyman nor Harges explicitly teach, further comprising at least one strap coupled to the piece of fabric and configured to: extend away from the piece of fabric when the piece of fabric is unfolded; extend around the piece of fabric and the pillow when the fabric is folded with the pillow into the compact shape; and fasten to at least one of the fabric, the pillow, or the at least one strap to retain the piece of fabric and the pillow in the compact shape.
Harvey teaches: further comprising at least one strap coupled to the piece of fabric (52 - Fig. 4) and configured to: extend away from the piece of fabric when the piece of fabric is unfolded (Fig. 4 shown to extend outward); extend around the piece of fabric and the pillow when the fabric is folded with the pillow into the compact shape (Fig. 5 shown to extend around the fabric into compact shape); and fasten to at least one of the fabric (strap 52 connects and fastens to the fabric via strap fastener 53, Col 8 Lines 52 - Col 9 Line 2), the pillow, or the at least one strap to retain the piece of fabric and the pillow in the compact shape.
Hyman, Harges, and Harvey are analogous because they each address attachment, folding, and securing structures for fabric and pillow systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply Harvey’s strap configuration to the system of Hyman as informed by Harges, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide secure fastening and compact retention of the folded assembly.
In regards to Claim 19, Hyman in view of Harges and further in view of Harvey teaches: The system of claim 18, Harvey further teaches, further comprising a handle (50 - Fig. 5) coupled to at least one of the pillow or the piece of fabric and configured to be exposed when the piece of fabric and the pillow are in the compact shape to facilitate carrying of the piece of fabric and the pillow (Fig. 5, Col 5 Lines 18-23).
Hyman, Harges, and Harvey are analogous because they each address attachment, folding, and securing structures for fabric and pillow systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply Harvey’s strap configuration to the system of Hyman as informed by Harges, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide secure fastening and compact retention of the folded assembly.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyman (US 2045784 A) in view of Harges (US 20100205743 A1) in view of Harvey (US 7621005 B1) and further in view of Weaver et al., hereinafter 'Weaver' (US 8307476 B1).
In regards to Claim 8, Hyman in view of Harges and further in view of Harvey teaches: The system of claim 1, Harges further teaches, further comprising a pillowcase configured to be coupled to and enclose the pillow and to be removed from the pillow for cleaning (102 - Fig. 1, Para 0022-0023, Examiner note: for cleaning is considered an intended use that does not further distinguish the claimed structure. A removable pillowcase, as taught by the reference of Harges inherently allows removal for cleaning even if the reference does not explicitly mention cleaning).
Hyman, Harges, Harvey, and Weaver are all analogous art because they each relate to fabric based pillow systems with removable and washable components. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the removable pillowcase of Harges with the cleaning related teachings of Weaver, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide a pillowcase that can be removed from the pillow for cleaning.
Harges does not explicitly teach: for cleaning
Weaver teaches: for cleaning (Col 4 Lines 44-46: "The pillow can be removed from the pouch, cleaned and replaced back into the pouch section of the beach towel with built-in pillow.")
Hyman, Harges, Harvey, and Weaver are analogous because they all address maintenance and reusability of pillow and fabric assemblies. Thus, it would have been obvious to incorporate Weaver’s explicit teaching of removing the pillow for cleaning into the combined system, with a reasonable expectation of success, to enhance hygiene and maintainability of the product.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyman (US 2045784 A) in view of Harges (US 20100205743 A1) and further in view of 'Weaver' (US 8307476 B1).
In regards to Claim 13, Hyman in view of Harges teaches: The method of claim 10, neither Hyman nor Harges explicitly teaches, further comprising decoupling the pillow from the piece of fabric to facilitate cleaning of the piece of fabric.
Weaver teaches: further comprising decoupling the pillow from the piece of fabric to facilitate cleaning of the piece of fabric (Col 4 Lines 44-46: "The pillow can be removed from the pouch, cleaned and replaced back into the pouch section of the beach towel with built-in pillow.").
Hyman, Harges, and Weaver are considered analogous art because they each concern fabric and pillow systems involving attachment, detachment, and cleaning functionality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply Weaver’s teaching of removing the pillow from the fabric for cleaning to the method of Hyman as informed by Harges, with a reasonable expectation of success, to facilitate cleaning of the fabric portion of the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks, filed 09/30/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 102 and/or 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the following:
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 9-11, 14-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyman (US 2045784 A) in view of Harges (US 20100205743 A1).
Claim(s) 3-4, 7, 12 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyman (US 2045784 A) in view of Harges (US 20100205743 A1) and further in view of Harvey (US 7621005 B1).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyman (US 2045784 A) in view of Harges (US 20100205743 A1) in view of Harvey (US 7621005 B1) and further in view of Weaver et al., hereinafter 'Weaver' (US 8307476 B1).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyman (US 2045784 A) in view of Harges (US 20100205743 A1) and further in view of 'Weaver' (US 8307476 B1).
Specifically, the Applicant Argues the following:
Applicant argues that amended independent claims 1, 10, and 17 now recite multiple newly added structural features including a fabric piece defining a pocket with an opening on a first surface, an inflatable pillow with a face cradle, a face portion having a breathable barrier aligned with the cradle, and a compact folded state that fully encloses the pillow and face portion. Applicant contends that these features are not taught or suggested by Harvey, Weaver, or Harges.
Applicant argues that none of the cited references disclose or contemplate these specific claim-amended features including the configuration of the pocket, the alignment of the face portion with the face cradle, or the folding arrangement that exposes only a single surface in the compact state. Therefore, Applicant concludes that independent claims 1, 10, and 17 and by extension all dependent claims are allowable.
The Examiner remarks the following:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s position that the amended features are wholly absent from the cited references. Harvey teaches a pillow and fabric assembly with an inflatable pillow retained in a fabric enclosure, and Harges and Weaver each teach removable or enclosed pillow structures with openings formed in fabric surfaces. When combined in the manner articulated in the rejections of record, noted above, the references collectively teach or suggest fabric structures defining pockets, pillow receiving openings, and arrangements enabling alignment between facial support regions and the pillow.
The Examiner further notes that the amendments relating to the face portion, breathable barrier, and compact folded state are considered design choices or obvious structural variations of the fabric and pillow assemblies taught in Harvey, Weaver, and Harges. The cited art teaches foldable fabric constructions, removable pillow enclosures, and user contact surfaces intended to provide comfort and airflow. Modifying such known structures to include breathable materials or to fold so that a single outer surface is exposed would have been within the routine skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Because the cited references alone or in combination still teach or render obvious the limitations of the amended independent claims, the rejections are maintained. Applicant’s general assertion that all remaining dependent claims become allowable simply because they depend from the amended independent claims is not persuasive. Each claim has been individually evaluated and the art of record continues to teach or suggest the relevant limitations as set forth in the prior rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tidwell (US-7624461-B2) teaches: A support pillow is disclosed which may include a cushion body, a cover and a mat. The cushion body may have a medial region and two opposing arms that define a generally open well, with the cushion body possibly having an outer periphery and an inner periphery adjacent the well. The cover may be disposed over the cushion body such that the cover may conform generally to the shape of the cushion body. The mat may be coupled with at least one of the cushion body and the cover.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON EMANSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-8473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justin Mikowski can be reached at (571)-272-8525. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MADISON EMANSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673